Sections

Commentary

Trump’s dramatic plan to cut the federal workforce

January 30, 2025


  • Trump’s attempted buyout is not a good deal for federal workers, and neither is it a good deal for those worried about government spending and the deficit.
  • The total wage bill for civilian employees in the federal government in 2022 was $271 billion dollars.
  • Removing government workers without a plan for maintaining essential services is a recipe for disaster.
On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump signed executive orders on immigration, gender identity and the federal workforce. The next day he authorized federal agents to conduct immigration arrests on school campuses.
On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump signed executive orders on immigration, gender identity, and the federal workforce. The next day he authorized federal agents to conduct immigration arrests on school campuses. USA TODAY NETWORK via Reuters Connect

In his second week in office, President Trump offered federal workers a deal: Resign by Feb. 6 and receive full pay and benefits through Sept. 30 while on administrative leave. The move, aimed at sharply reducing the workforce, poses challenges for employees, the government, and Trump’s own presidency. Here’s why.

First, the workers. There is no guarantee that this offer is legal. The federal government was first granted buyout authority during the Bush administration as part of the so-called “Cold War dividend.” When the Clinton administration came in, they had big plans to reinvent government. Getting buyout authority for the domestic side of the government was a high priority for them, and in March 1994, Congress passed, and Clinton signed, a bill permitting buyouts of up to $25,000.

The law is still in effect and poses some interesting challenges. For example, the average federal worker earns $106,462 annually, or about $8,871 per month. At that rate, the government would be exceed the $25,000 limit on buyouts in roughly three months, leaving five months before the September 30 deadline. The Trump administration sought to work around this problem by asking workers to go on “administrative leave” for eight months, but the courts may determine that there really is no legal distinction between “administrative leave” and a buyout—meaning the $25,000 limit would still apply, regardless of how the move is labeled.

Legal questions aside, this is a risky proposition for federal employees. It’s no surprise that Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, home to many federal workers, warned, “Don’t be fooled.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, another state with many federal workers, echoed Kaine’s sentiment.

The plan is also a bad deal for those concerned about government spending and the deficit. In 2022, the federal civilian payroll totaled $271 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office about 60% of that went to employees in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security—agencies exempted from Trump’s plan. That leaves $108 billion for the rest of the government workforce. If 10% of eligible workers took Trump’s offer, the government would save only $10.8 billion annually.

In federal budget terms, that’s a drop in the bucket. To put this in perspective, extending the Trump tax cuts would cost $400 billion per year, and the federal deficit is projected to hit $1.9 trillion in 2025. Personnel cuts alone won’t close the gap.

Finally, these cuts could backfire on Trump himself. While the move may appear bold, it plays into the longstanding narrative that Washington bureaucrats cost a lot of money to the taxpayer and obstruct presidential priorities. In reality, most civil servants simply implement the law. When they don’t do their jobs well, Americans notice.

Consider, for instance, air traffic control. The federal government employs about 14,000 air traffic controllers. There is no Republican or MAGA way to land an airplane. However, a substantial cut in their numbers could slow down or stop air traffic—fewer controllers means fewer landing slots and fewer options for flying. It all adds up to angry citizens. If air travel is disrupted, who will they blame? Donald J. Trump.

Civil servants implement policy—they don’t make it. During Trump’s first term, he believed senior officials were slow-walking or even blocking his initiatives. There’s little evidence for that, and past presidents of both parties have expressed similar frustrations when facing the complexities of policymaking. At the Social Security Administration, for example, staff don’t determine benefit formulas based on how much you’ve earned, how long you’ve worked, or how old you are. That’s handled by the Treasury Department, with heavy congressional oversight. But they do ensure $1.5 trillion in benefits reach the right recipients each year. If staffing cuts disrupt payments, who will Americans blame? Donald J. Trump.

Implementation failures, as the political scientists call them, or giant screwups, as many others call them, are politically deadly for presidents. Even though President Jimmy Carter wasn’t piloting the helicopters that crashed during the failed American hostage rescue in Tehran, he took the blame. George W. Bush didn’t cause the government’s failure to respond effectively to Hurricane Katrina, but he was held responsible. Even though Barack Obama didn’t write the faulty code that caused the Obamacare website crashes, he had to own the failure. Trump’s first-term crisis was the federal response to COVID-19; Joe Biden’s was the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal. Presidents always take the fall.

Pushing federal workers out of the government with no plan for how government services will function is a recipe for disaster. The next major screwup will belong entirely to Trump. As history has shown, no president can spin their way out of a crisis once it happens. Slashing the federal workforce without a strategy only increases the likelihood that one will come back to haunt him.

  • Footnotes
    1. The author worked for Vice President Al Gore from 1993 to 1997 creating and managing the National Performance Review.

The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).